I blame Bugatti

"boredalways" (boredalway666) 06/26/2020 at 15:34 • Filed to: Crashlopnik, Crashed Exotics, lamborghini huracan, A van down by the river

1

31

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

For once, it's actually the car's fault.

For Sweden > boredalways 06/26/2020 at 15:41

2

That does sound like a Lamborghini

CB > boredalways 06/26/2020 at 15:43

16

“hit from behind”, “innocent motorist”

Bold and inaccurate claim of innocence for the guy who hit a stopped vehicle.

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > boredalways 06/26/2020 at 15:44

1

Some gently used Lambo part on the market. 

WilliamsSW > boredalways 06/26/2020 at 15:49

0

Clearly a lemon anyways.  

DAWRX - The Herb Strikes Back > boredalways 06/26/2020 at 15:49

0

Holy crap did it roll or do those things pop out automatically?

Also, what are insurance laws in the UK like? Wi ll the other motorists insurance cover a totaled Lamborghini ?

OPPOsaurus WRX > boredalways 06/26/2020 at 15:52

1

i wonder if they accidentally dropped it into reverse

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > boredalways 06/26/2020 at 15:58

0

No, clearly this i s because of racism

Future next gen S2000 owner > boredalways 06/26/2020 at 15:59

3

Mechanical problem 20 minutes into its life. Italian engineering at its finest.

Captain of the Enterprise > CB 06/26/2020 at 16:00

2

That was going to be my point as well. 

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > For Sweden 06/26/2020 at 16:13

0

Driver probably never saw it because it’s only two feet tall.

Svend > CB 06/26/2020 at 16:21

2

Both vehicles were traveling in l ane three (what N orth Americans would call the fast lane) so likely at max national speed limit (70mph, though just as likely of been just over that) , if the Lambo had stopped sharply (ie locked brakes) due to ‘ mechanical failure’, could of also caused a failure for brake or emergency lights to illuminate rendering the incident ‘at no fault’.

As one ‘Shep97' replied on the post.

The very word ‘innocent’ has 2 definitions. “Not guilty of a crime or offence” or “not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences.” In this case the latter is applicable.

Chinny Raccoon > DAWRX - The Herb Strikes Back 06/26/2020 at 16:28

3

If they have insurance it will pay out (if the car behind is found to be at fault)  we don’t have the silly low limit you do. My very ordinary and not expensive policy covers up to £20m third party liability, which was standard. From memory previous policies have been the same.

Svend > DAWRX - The Herb Strikes Back 06/26/2020 at 16:29

1

If the driver of the trailing vehicle is innocent then the incident would likely be classed as ‘at no fault’. So the insurance of the Lambo driver would pay out but likely pursue reimbursement from Lamborghini themselves but first they’d look at the dealership to see if there was something they did or didn’t do that could of avoided the whole incident.    

A Boy and His Longtail > boredalways 06/26/2020 at 16:29

1

“ Mechanical failures” “seagulls” same thing

CB > Svend 06/26/2020 at 16:30

0

Interesting.

DAWRX - The Herb Strikes Back > Chinny Raccoon 06/26/2020 at 16:39

1

wow 20m, yeah i don’t know anyone with those kinds of limits unless you’re a commercial driver of some sort. In Texas the minimum is 60k for injuries to occupants and 25k for property damage.

Not to mention how many people around here drive without insurance...Thats why a lot of people around here have uninsured/under insured add-ons to their policies.

DAWRX - The Herb Strikes Back > Svend 06/26/2020 at 16:40

0

I’d be very interested to find out exactly what caused that “failure”

Svend > CB 06/26/2020 at 16:47

1

Just like if a car in front braked sharply and you hit it, you could be charged with several offences. But if the vehicle in front d idn’t have working brake lights or was deemed unfit for the road, then you would be deemed at no fault.

All RPUs are trained in the mechanics and investigation of an RTC

Both drivers must not be impaired for any reason and v ehicles in roadworthy condi tion.

After that it’s down the Road Collision Investigation Team.

Thomas Donohue > boredalways 06/26/2020 at 16:48

0

Calipers match the safety green of the police car.  +1

Svend > DAWRX - The Herb Strikes Back 06/26/2020 at 16:52

0

The Lambo would certainly be getting looked by the Collision Investigation Team.

But if no fataliti es, then they may not look too indepth. 

DAWRX - The Herb Strikes Back > Svend 06/26/2020 at 16:55

0

Okay now this is really interesting, how bad of an accident brings these guys out?

As far as I know we don’t have a counterpart to your collision investigation team here (might be wrong), its just the cops who “investigate”. The insurance companies then duke it out in court if it goes that far.

Svend > DAWRX - The Herb Strikes Back 06/26/2020 at 17:09

1

RPU officers are trained in the mechanics and investigation of a traffic collision but there are times or instances  that require further investigation to find fault or blame.

Collision Investigation Units can be brought out for pedestrian v motorist, cyclist v motorist, multi vehicle, vehicle rollovers, etc...

Basically any incident which needs more investigation.

Svend > Thomas Donohue 06/26/2020 at 17:15

0

?

Safety green of the police vehic l e?

Police is blue and yellow.

Ambulance is green and yellow.

Thomas Donohue > Svend 06/26/2020 at 18:15

1

Safety Yellowish lime   green.....close enough!

CRider > CB 06/26/2020 at 18:55

0

Well the Lambo looks like it’s going so fast even when it’s stopped that the other driver couldn’t have possibly known it wasn’t moving!

Svend > Thomas Donohue 06/26/2020 at 19:03

0

Erm, yeah, go on then. Lol. 

Urambo Tauro > Svend 06/26/2020 at 20:50

1

Yeah I like the sharp stop theory better than the brake light theory. On one hand, the brake light theory makes total sense because it sounds like a simple/likely enough failure that could easily catch a following driver by surprise.

But on the other hand, if we are to believe that the “innocent” driver wasn’t distracted nor tailgating, then the sharp stop theory fits better. I mean, (apologies for the rant) the whole practice of maintaining an appropriate following distance really shouldn’t be dependent on brake lights at all. When the lead car is in plain view, the brake lights are kind of redundant anyway. If the car is getting closer, it’s obviously because it’s travelling slower than the following vehicle. The need to make adjustments is already instantly obvious, regardless of the presence of bright red lights to spell out what’s happening.

Don’t get me wrong, I still insist that having functional brake lamps equipped is an absolute necessity. No car should be without them. But paying attention and maintaining an appropriate following distance are even more important, being fundamental aspects of safe driving. I want to believe that the following driver here was indeed 100% innocent in every way, and the only way I can reconcile that with this crash is if the mysterious “mechanical failure” was one that caused the Lambo to stop sharply.

Svend > Urambo Tauro 06/26/2020 at 23:02

0

All granted, however, British ‘Roads Policing Unit’s’ are trained in the mechanics and investigation of an RTC (R oad Traffic Collision), not to mention we have specially trained Forensic Collision Investigators plus VOSA (vehicle inspectorate) who can be called to assess actual road worthiness of both vehicles.

At an incident like that witnesses often stop, they would of given statements, road conditions taken into account, tyre markings on the road surface, any camera footage of the highway from Highways England, each driver is breathalysed as standard practice, each driver is checked for any impairment (not just by the officers on scene but by ambulance staff on scene), mobile phones are checked for phone calls, incoming and out going, texts received, etc... any d oubt, then their phones are forensically looked a t down at the polic e station when plugged into the police computer that will show the state of the phone leading up to the incident, the state of the cockpit of each vehicle, was there something that may of distracted them such as a newspaper, electronic device, charging cable hanging lose that they may of been trying to connect whilst in motion, what was the road worthy condition of both vehicles, etc...

All of this and more would of been assessed and more, so if the officers on scene after taking all this in, their unit chief wants to say the driver of the trailing vehicle is ‘innocent’, then I can say with almost 100% certainty the police investigated it to the best of their abilities and not a case of a police constable walking up to the scene and going, ‘sheesh, that’s f**ked, oh you mate, nah, your good mate, your golden’, ‘’ere Kev, get ma phone. I want some selfies with this 20 minute old car............ Ye’, I know. Unlucky, ha ha ha ha ha ha’.

The only information were given, is Lambo stopped in lane three of a live motorway, stopped vehicle was due to mechanical failure, stopped vehicle then hit by trailing vehicle, vehicle driver of trailing vehicle deemed ‘innocent’ by Roads Policing Unit on scene.

No offence.

Nauraushaun > boredalways 06/27/2020 at 04:21

0

Bugatti?

Urambo Tauro > Svend 06/27/2020 at 08:14

1

None taken! Sorry if my frustration sounded argumentative. Just yesterday I witnessed one car rear-end another right there in the lane next to me, and I keep thinking about what the explanation must have been . It’s probably something typical of drivers in my area, who are so very prone things like tailgating and distracted driving. To make things even worse, our state has adopted no-fault insurance laws, which encourages drivers to refrain from ever admitting fault, fostering an attitude of irresponsibleness. When police arrive on the scene around here, they’re unlikely to get the true full story behind a crash.

Svend > Urambo Tauro 06/27/2020 at 09:23

0

Nah, not at all.

Here we’re taught not to say sorry or admit fault, let the insurance haggle it out.

But when the police turn up, even if the fault is obvious (unless blatantly obvious), the police will go through their procedures of breathalyser, statements, photos of vehicles, etc...

We have a large degree of distracted drivers too which is why so much is looked at mobile phones and other devices, was the driver eating, etc... police have software where they can look up exactly what the mobile was doing for several minutes leading up to the incident so as to rule that device.

I think the general thing on here is all police are the same, if say, Minnesota police, don't do something, then neither with West Yorkshire, England police or if NYPD can't be trusted for racist arrests, nor can Victoria, Australia police. So you need to defend them and assert your point.